1

 The facts are drawn from the pleadings, responses to discovery requests, and the

deposition testimony and affidavits of plaintiff and of key employees of Lufthansa.

2

 Deutschland is not a party in this action. Deutschland is a sister company of the

originally named defendant, Sky Chefs, Inc. d/b/a LSG Sky Chefs. On March 8, 2006, judgment

was entered in favor of that entity. See infra, at 2. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAWN DeMARINO : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

: No. 05-2457

SKY CHEFS, INC. d/b/a LSG SKY CHEFS :

and :

LSG LUFTHANSA SERVICE HOLDING AG :

MEMORANDUM

Ludwig, J. September 19, 2007

Jurisdiction is diversity in this personal injury case. 28 U.S.C. §1332. The following

relevant facts are undisputed.1 On May 31, 2003, plaintiff Dawn DeMarino sustained injuries to

her back when she was “removing a carrier/container from an overhead galley” on a U.S. Airways

aircraft in Philadelphia. Complaint, ¶ 8. The container was labeled styrofoam cups, but contained

heavy silverware instead. Id., ¶¶ 7, 9. The improperly marked container was loaded onto the

aircraft in Germany by LSG Sky Chefs Deutschland GmbH. Deposition testimony of Dr. Klaus

Engelen, at 123. Deutschland is a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant, LSG Lufthansa Service

Holding AG. Affidavit of Thomas Nagel, ¶¶ 6, 7. 2 Lufthansa is a holding company, and does not

conduct catering services, including loading containers onto aircraft. Id., ¶ 3. 

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff commenced two separate negligence actions in the

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against Sky Chefs, Inc. d/b/a LSG Sky Chefs and Lufthansa.

Case 2:05-cv-02457-EL Document 61 Filed 09/20/07 Page 1 of 5
3

 Sky Chefs is also a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lufthansa. Deutschland and Sky Chefs

“are sisters of a joint mother, Holding.” Deposition testimony of Dr. Klaus Engelen, at 76-79.

4

 “It is a general principle of corporate law deeply ‘ingrained in our economic and legal

systems’ that a parent corporation . . . is not liable for the acts of its subsidiaries.” Parkinson v.

Guidant Corporation, 315 F. Supp. 741, 745 (W.D. Pa. 2004), quoting United States v.

Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51, 61 (1998). Pearson v. Component Tech. Corp, 247 F.3d 471, 484 (3d

Cir. 2001) (mere ownership is not sufficient for a finding of liability against a parent company).

5

 Mr. Ames testified as follows: “Our risk management is driven by German law contract,

which means we have to show to the public, the shareholders, the people who own shares in

Lufthansa or in the public owned company, we have to show them if there is any risk to the

company. We are not responsible for operation things. It is just strategic things which it is doing

here.” Deposition of Klaus Joerg-Ames, at 140-41 and 144.

2

The actions were removed to this court and consolidated. On March 7, 2006, summary judgment

was granted in favor of Sky Chefs, Inc. d/b/a LSG Sky Chefs based on the unrefuted evidence that

Deutschland, not Sky Chefs, loaded the container.3 March 7, 2006 Order. Lufthansa argues that

judgment should be entered in its favor also, because as a mere holding company, it cannot be held

liable for the negligence of its subsidiary.4 Plaintiff argues that Lufthansa’s own negligence,

through the action and inaction of its risk management committee, provides a basis for imposition

of liability. 

Lufthansa has implemented a risk management program, as it is required to do under

German law, §91 subseq. 2 Aktiengetz (Stock Certificate Act). Affidavit of Dr. Klaus Engelen,

¶ 4. The focus of the risk management committee is to identify risks that “endanger the continued

existence of the corporation.” Deposition of Dr. Klaus Engelen, at 52-53, 107-08, 148-50;

Deposition of Klaus Joerg-Ames, at 98-100. The purpose of the risk management program is to

protect shareholders of Lufthansa.5 It is not its purpose to identify risks to individuals such as

Case 2:05-cv-02457-EL Document 61 Filed 09/20/07 Page 2 of 5
6

 The relevant testimony is as follows:

Q: Now, when somebody gets hurt, you said human beings, individuals, people get hurt,

is that risk reported to Lufthansa Holding?

A: Normally not, normally not.

Q: When you say “normally not,” what is normal?

A: If it’s covered by insurance, there’s no risk in the sense of risk management here. If

it’s not covered, which I can’t believe because we have insurance for everything and all

things . . .

Deposition of Klaus Joerg-Ames, at 145-46.

7

 The “risk maps” were developed and reviewed by Lufthansa to identify and correct

various categories of risk encountered by it subsidiaries.

3

plaintiff. Injuries to individuals are the province of Lufthansa’s insurance program.6

Plaintiff posits that the risk management committee was sufficiently involved in the

operations of Lufthansa’s subsidiaries that a breakdown - such as the improperly loaded container

that caused plaintiff’s injury - is attributable to the committee’s negligence as well as

Deutschland’s. Plaintiff points to “risk maps”7 produced by Lufthansa as evidence of the

committee’s involvement in and supervision of the operations of its subsidiaries, including

Deutschland. Deposition of Klaus Joerg-Ames, Exhibits “7,” “8,” and “9.” One of the categories

identified in the risk maps was “Hygiene/Quality,” which included a sub-category “damages of

persons.” Id. According to the maps, Lufthansa’s Global Board Committee was responsible for

risk management reporting in this area, with risks reportable to Lufthansa’s Hygiene Institute. Id.

The risk maps suggest the need for “monthly world wide spot check-like quality control of in-flight

loading,” to be implemented by Lufthansa’s Global/Regional Board, its risk management

committee, and the Operations Manager of its Hygiene Institute. Id. According to plaintiff, the

Case 2:05-cv-02457-EL Document 61 Filed 09/20/07 Page 3 of 5
8

 “Summary judgment is appropriate only where, drawing all reasonable inferences in

favor of the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [sic] the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ruehl v. Viacom, Inc., – F.3d –, –,

2007 WL 2555244, at *2 n.6, quoting Lexington Ins. Co. v. Western Pa. Hosp., 423 F.3d 318,

322 n. 2 (3d Cir. 2005).

4

“risk maps” clearly contemplate operational risks such as catering and loading activity, and,

therefore, the committee is responsible for the failure to prevent plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff’s

memorandum at 17-20.

However, plaintiff’s interpretation of the “risk maps” is directly refuted by the testimony

of Mr. Ames. Addressing the “Hygiene/Quality” category of risk to which plaintiff refers, Mr.

Ames testified that “damages of persons” in the context of Lufthansa’s risk management program

means, for example, poisoning of passengers and bad quality of food - issues that will cause

Lufthansa to lose customers and, in turn, endanger the existence of the company. Deposition of

Klaus Joerg-Ames, at 182 and 184. 

Here, the evidence is clear that Lufthansa’s risk management committee was established

as required by German law to consider risks on a global level, not an individual level. The

committee functioned on a global level and did not create, monitor or implement policies at a level

that would create liability for plaintiff’s injuries. Because Lufthansa cannot be held vicariously

liable for the conduct of its subsidiary, summary judgment must be entered in favor of Lufthansa

and against plaintiff.8

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Edmund V. Ludwig 

Edmund V. Ludwig, J.

Case 2:05-cv-02457-EL Document 61 Filed 09/20/07 Page 4 of 5
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAWN DeMARINO : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

: No. 05-2457

SKY CHEFS, INC. d/b/a LSG SKY CHEFS :

and :

LSG LUFTHANSA SERVICE HOLDING AG :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 19th day of September, 2007, “Defendant’s, LSG Lufthansa Holding

AG, Motion for Summary Judgment” is granted. Judgment is entered in favor of defendant and

against plaintiff. A memorandum accompanies this order.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Edmund V. Ludwig 

Edmund V. Ludwig, J.

Case 2:05-cv-02457-EL Document 61 Filed 09/20/07 Page 5 of 5